[ga] Re: [atlarge-discuss] It could happen anywhere

["todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>]

Jeff and all - the Internet-Draft on the new Root Zone protocol is about
ready to fly. I got about 99% of it done, and want to re-read it today and
make sure I don't sound any more like a fool than I am. Should be submitted
later today.

Todd
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
Cc: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>; "gen full" <ga-full@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 6:21 PM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] It could happen anywhere


> Todd and all,
>
>   Thanks anyway Todd, I already received one via E-Mail.  And
> you already have my E-Mail address.  So in the future you can
> forward any such letters to me via my E-Mail address...
>
> todd glassey wrote:
>
> > Jeff - The IAB presented a RFC to the IETF and it should have been an
I-D as
> > far as I can tell as well since they short circuited the response model
by
> > not submitting their work as though it were a normal submission. If you
are
> > interested in the letter I sent to the IAB and others this morning, send
me
> > your address and I will send you back a copy.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> > To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
> > Cc: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>; "gen full" <ga-full@dnso.org>
> > Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 6:03 PM
> > Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] It could happen anywhere
> >
> > > Todd and all stakeholders or interested parties,
> > >
> > > todd glassey wrote:
> > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> > > > To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
> > > > Cc: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> > > > Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 2:13 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] It could happen anywhere
> > > >
> > > > > Todd and all stakeholders interested parties,
> > > > >
> > > > > todd glassey wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Ron may be right about the South African Governments Intent, but
it
> > > > really
> > > > > > makes no difference to the bigger picture. The concept of the
Global
> > > > > > Internet and a One Earth Network is still 20-50 years away I
think.
> > > > >
> > > > >   The concept of a "one Earth Network" is already here for all
> > practical
> > > > > purposes.  Yes, indeed there are a very few very remote areas of
> > > > > sparsely populated areas that cannot be reached via any kind of
> > > > > network connection.  But they are fast disappearing.
> > > >
> > > > No, I think its more that what is here is a one root network.
> > >
> > >   Well according the the ICANN BOD and staff that seems to be
> > > true and how they would like it to remain.  The facts are though
> > > that in Asia for instance, other Root networks are in place and
> > > expanding.  This shall continue.  The EU as well is in the
> > > planning stages of developing their own Root structure as
> > > well as was recently announced.  Hence, as I originally said,
> > > "The concept of a "one Earth Network" is already here for all
practical
> > >  purposes.  Yes, indeed there are a very few very remote areas of
> > >  sparsely populated areas that cannot be reached via any kind of
> > >  network connection.  But they are fast disappearing."
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > And is
> > > > > > more political and based in the need for Countries to enforce
their
> > > > > > boundaries than in technologies. The other mitigating factor is
that
> > the
> > > > > > persona that ICANN puts forth, especially with all the
in-fighting
> > going
> > > > on
> > > > > > visibly below it, is that the proposed "management of the
Internet"
> > is
> > > > > > equally incompetent.
> > > > >
> > > > >   The present form of "management of the Internet" that this ICANN
> > > > > BoD and staff are attempting to impose is indeed incompetent, and
is
> > also
> > > > > not following the White Paper and the MoU.
> > > >
> > > > But there is no real reason for anyone to have to buy into the ICANN
> > > > philosophy. Anyone that would operate their own root can do this.
> > >
> > >   Exactly my original point.  And a philosophy that IENGroup reached
> > > some 3 years ago now...
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ron, its not that the one-world idea is bad, its just that as a
> > race, we
> > > > as
> > > > > > a global culture are not ready yet for this love-peace-knowledge
> > picture
> > > > of
> > > > > > the Internet. Until organizations like the UN willing accept the
> > > > > > responsibility for global peace and the creation of a Terran
Bill of
> > > > Rights
> > > > > > or a definition of the Human Birthright here on Earth of which
this
> > > > Internet
> > > > > > is an integral part, we will have these problems.
> > > > >
> > > > >   The UN plays a role, all be it an important one, but still only
a
> > role.
> > > >
> > > > Yes that's my point. WIPO is not enough.
> > >
> > >   Exactly!  The WTO seems to also be in some trouble as you
> > > may be aware, and loosing favor amongst a host of nations.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To that end I propose that the only smart thing to do is to not
> > fight
> > > > the
> > > > > > establishment's and let them go onward with compartmentalizing
and
> > > > creating
> > > > > > eBorders from the Internet's networking model. To do this will
> > really
> > > > piss
> > > > > > ICANN off since it means that they failed.
> > > > >
> > > > >   The present ICANN BOD and staff have already basically admitted
that
> > > > > they have failed with Lynn's proposed restructure ideas, which
seem to
> > > > > change radically with almost each passing day...
> > > >
> > > > Yes, well when you are grasping at straws...
> > >
> > >   ROFLMAO!  How true!  >;)
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Not that their vision was wrong
> > > > > > individually, but that collectively they couldn't get their act
> > > > together,
> > > > > > and so now others will step in and take over as with what SA is
> > > > proposing.
> > > > >
> > > > >   Indeed true..
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My personal feeling is that it will take the restructuring of
layer
> > two
> > > > and
> > > > > > three to accommodate but this solves many mechanical issues that
> > ICANN
> > > > was
> > > > > > unable to address - the technology is simple...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >     1)    If a Root Zone based query/response model is erected
atop
> > DNS
> > > > then
> > > > > > we will have capability for a truly interoperable
infrastructure.
> > > > >
> > > > >   Yes, and this can be several levels deep.  BTW, this is already
> > underway
> > > > > in various forms...
> > > >
> > > > Most of them leave the ICANN as the single root operator though and
> > thats
> > > > where I decouple form the mainstream techie line at this time. The
one
> > root
> > > > concept is the problem not the answer.
> > >
> > >   Very much agreed.  It is not even technically sound in the present
> > > geo-economic trade environment today...  And as time passes
> > > the single Root structure becomes less viable.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >     2)    If the layer-2/layer-3 Internet is compartmentalized
into
> > > > > > definable areas and eBorders are allowed to become a reality,
then
> > > > obviously
> > > > > > a NAT style gateway between each eBorderd DNS Tree could have
its
> > own
> > > > > > individual address space...
> > > > >
> > > > >   Also true, and also underway..
> > > >
> > > > yes and this is being done pretty much on the QT as well. But it
does
> > > > formally establish eBorders for the Internet and have them intersect
at
> > > > major switching centers.
> > >
> > >   Well not really so much on the QT, but not all that visible on
ICANN's
> > > radar screen, as it should be..  But when the ICANN BoD and especially
> > > the ICANN staff purposefully ignores or actively thwarts or resists
> > > reality, it harms everyone...  That is just plain silliness...
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >     3)    The creation of a flattened "global Area" in the area
> > > > constrained
> > > > > > by #1 and #2 gives us global network interoperability...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So lets see:    #1 solves the need for more domain names... Each
DNS
> > > > Zone
> > > > > > can have its own unique set of TLD's; #2 solves the availability
of
> > IP
> > > > > > Addresses since each eBordered zone would have its own IPv4
space
> > and
> > > > talk
> > > > > > to the global Internet Interconnect though a well-knows set of
> > > > addresses.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What more do we need?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Todd
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Ron Sherwood" <sherwood@islands.vi>
> > > > > > To: <eric@hi-tek.com>
> > > > > > Cc: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> > > > > > Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 1:10 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] It could happen anywhere
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Good morning, Eric,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eric wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >Dear Ron,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >Ron Sherwood wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Dear fellow at-largers:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>     Today's report on the political battle over .za is copied
> > below.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>     The claim that the majority of South Africans do not have
> > access
> > > > to
> > > > > > the Internet, has nothing >>whatsoever to do with Domain Name
> > > > management.
> > > > > > It is simply political deception used to persuade the >>ignorant
to
> > > > accept
> > > > > > nationalization of that management.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Please show us where you get this information.  It may not be
their
> > > > > > >fault but it may welll be their creation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The story came from the Reuters wire service with a June 7,
2002,
> > Cape
> > > > Town,
> > > > > > South Africa dateline. It was also covered on CNN.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > > > > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
> > > > > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> > > > > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > > > > E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> > > > > Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> > > > > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> > > > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > --
> > > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
> > > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> > > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > > E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> > > Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> > > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> > For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
>
> Regards,
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
>

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html